A traffic officer killed on duty
Discussion
BossHogg said:
Full court case commences on Monday 30th October 2017 at Carlisle Crown Court.
This will be a jury trial, so here's a quick reminder of the contempt rule. Whilst the trial is continuing, don't post anything that could create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to a fair trial. I don't know how far PH's audience reach extends, but it's not a tiny website. NB the rule does NOT mean that the case cannot be discussed at all. It just means curb your enthusiasm for a while, until the jury has decided on guilt or innocence.caelite said:
Completely agree, different scenario but near me there is an NSL country road, in the van I can do at a constant 60, in the car a wee bit more. However there is 'SLOW' and right/left hand corner signs literally every 100metres for long sweeping bends. The signs are completely unnecessary for all but 1 corner, which tightens over blind crest, then goes on to a T junction after 100m or so.
The first time I drove that road at 18 I nearly wiped out trying to scrub off speed for the junction and losing the back end as I was still cornering over the blind crest. There have been several accidents that I know of in the last few years at that very spot, worst thing is the LA completely refused to acknowledge the excessive signage further up the road as the reason that people don't slow down enough.
If there's an accident black spot there are two possible reasons: drivers who drive reasonably safely for thousands of miles suddenly abandon good sense or else there is something at the location that causes drivers confusion.The first time I drove that road at 18 I nearly wiped out trying to scrub off speed for the junction and losing the back end as I was still cornering over the blind crest. There have been several accidents that I know of in the last few years at that very spot, worst thing is the LA completely refused to acknowledge the excessive signage further up the road as the reason that people don't slow down enough.
I've often thought that too much signage causes its own problems but I've not seen any evidence to support this. One example to support my view is double white lines. Years ago they were just used at particularly dangerous locations where overtaking would be very dangerous, like hump back bridges or blind corners, but nowadays they are used for lane management. There used to be all but universal compliance in the old days but there are now exemptions to crossing them.
Tractors on the 272 are always exciting.
caelite said:
Completely agree, different scenario but near me there is an NSL country road, in the van I can do at a constant 60, in the car a wee bit more. However there is 'SLOW' and right/left hand corner signs literally every 100metres for long sweeping bends. The signs are completely unnecessary for all but 1 corner, which tightens over blind crest, then goes on to a T junction after 100m or so.
The problem is, you're probably a pretty good driver and so you can do those bends at 60 or more safely, even in a van.There are plenty of people who, it would appear, would struggle to get round such a bend at 30 without crashing or veering all over the road.
I have always been against the 'lowest common denominator' method of road safety - my view is that if someone isn't good enough, they shouldn't be in the road - but I accept that it's become necessary.
Breadvan72 said:
This will be a jury trial, so here's a quick reminder of the contempt rule. Whilst the trial is continuing, don't post anything that could create a substantial risk of serious prejudice to a fair trial. I don't know how far PH's audience reach extends, but it's not a tiny website. NB the rule does NOT mean that the case cannot be discussed at all. It just means curb your enthusiasm for a while, until the jury has decided on guilt or innocence.
I will be biting my tongue in public, I want this person to get found guilty and I'm not going to risk him getting off on a technicality. I want justice served for Adam. 
zarjaz1991 said:
What if he isn't?
Why not dispense with all this 'trial' palaver, and simply pronounce guilt at the scene?
As per the response - 'I just want justice' (at any cost / guilty or not). The possibility that the driver may be innocent doesn't compute as an option - default police mindset. These individuals are carrying firearms.Why not dispense with all this 'trial' palaver, and simply pronounce guilt at the scene?
220s plenty said:
zarjaz1991 said:
What if he isn't?
Why not dispense with all this 'trial' palaver, and simply pronounce guilt at the scene?
As per the response - 'I just want justice' (at any cost / guilty or not). The possibility that the driver may be innocent doesn't compute as an option - default police mindset. These individuals are carrying firearms.Why not dispense with all this 'trial' palaver, and simply pronounce guilt at the scene?
PS: Judge Dredd is not a real guy.
Don’t know if this is relevant OP but thought it maybe of interest to you and others in this thread
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/202302
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/202302
Goes without saying anyone accused of anything deserves a fair trial and we're fortunate to have, for the most part, the justice system we have.
So not a 'firearm', like you said.
The forces which have issued Tasers to traffic officers are the ones which tend to single-crew them, even on nights. I'm sure you'd be keen to stop multiple-occupant vehicles on motorways on your own in the early hours.
Most still do not have them. I also think you've made an assumption as to the 'victim's' job and also the person you've misquoted.
220s plenty said:
DuraAce said:
Carrying guns?
They carry Tasers. The forces which have issued Tasers to traffic officers are the ones which tend to single-crew them, even on nights. I'm sure you'd be keen to stop multiple-occupant vehicles on motorways on your own in the early hours.
Most still do not have them. I also think you've made an assumption as to the 'victim's' job and also the person you've misquoted.
La Liga said:
Goes without saying anyone accused of anything deserves a fair trial and we're fortunate to have, for the most part, the justice system we have.
So not a 'firearm', like you said.
The forces which have issued Tasers to traffic officers are the ones which tend to single-crew them, even on nights. I'm sure you'd be keen to stop multiple-occupant vehicles on motorways on your own in the early hours.
Most still do not have them. I also think you've made an assumption as to the 'victim's' job and also the person you've misquoted.
Well it wouldn't be Pistonheads without a shouty, tinfoil hat wearing moron getting themselves into a tiz because they couldn't be bothered to read the first post properly. 220s plenty said:
DuraAce said:
Carrying guns?
They carry Tasers. The forces which have issued Tasers to traffic officers are the ones which tend to single-crew them, even on nights. I'm sure you'd be keen to stop multiple-occupant vehicles on motorways on your own in the early hours.
Most still do not have them. I also think you've made an assumption as to the 'victim's' job and also the person you've misquoted.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff